| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| bedrock_barney |
Posted - 05/27/2007 : 13:10:20
Was reading about this in my Sunday paper this morning. Apparently it is opening tomorrow in Kentucky. Link:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/about.asp
The Answers in Genesis website states that the museum intends to persuade the American public that the literal truth of the bible is the only truth, ie the Earth is only 6,000 years old, man and dinosaurs cohabited together and there is no such thing as evolution.
I'm actually fascinated by this whole premise and would love to be local enough to visit. Sadly I can't see any trips over the pond in the near future. This sort of museum would never get built in this country and the fact that it cost $27M and has been funded from donations is incredible.
Anyone planning a visit?
BTW, before anyone asks, I tick the 'no religion' box on forms.
 The humble apple |
| 35 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 15:25:21
religion is poopy. discuss. (i feel like JD in the scrubs episode "His Story IV")
"Idiot" is just her sig. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 07/01/2007 : 07:13:51
Here it is Erebus. Must have been fate ;)
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/11/2007 : 13:17:57
Just now I am watching an old fave original Star Trek episode “The Return of the Archons” which has as its centerpiece the loving embrace of Landru. Quotes:
by Spock: Odd, the expression on that man’s face - blank contentment.
by Landru Elder: The strangers are not “of the body”.
For years I have wanted to reply to the seasonal greeting “Merry Christmas” with “Go with Landru”, but I’ve never had the nerve.
|
| starmekitten |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 01:44:13
For anyone who is confused about evolution, I found this website which provides near instant expertise:
Chapter 4
EVOLUTION
How do we know about ancient creatures?
Scientists who study the extinct creatures that once roamed the Earth are called paleontologists. If you were to watch a paleontologist at work, you would probably see him on his hands and knees, methodically and painstakingly examining the surface of the ground. This is because he is looking for fossils, or else he has lost a contact lens.
A fossil is any trace left behind by a living thing. Usually the term refers to mineralized bones, but it can also include teeth, eggs, footprints and unpaid phone bills. By careful analysis, paleontologists can often reconstruct an entire animal from just a tiny fragment of bone.
By collecting and analyzing fossils, paleontologists have succeeded in tracing the entire history of life on Earth, from the first living things to modern man. Of course, there are gaps in the record and minor uncertainties of interpretation. Nevertheless, the overall picture is clearly understood.
How does evolution work?
Animals of a given species are alike because they inherit a certain set of genes from their parents. Every so often, something goes wrong with the mechanism that transmits the genes, and an animal is born that doesn't resemble its father and mother. You probably know of examples in your own family.
If this accidental variation, or mutation, is helpful in the animal's struggle to survive, it is more likely to be passed on to succeeding generations. In this way, new species can arise.
The First Living Things
Evolution proceeds from simpler forms to the more complex. The first animals were simple one-celled blobs of protoplasm. Then two-celled animals arose. They were followed by three-celled, four-celled, five-celled, etc. (If you find the mathematics here too difficult, just think of the numbers larger than one as "many.")
It is easy to see how this process led inevitably to more complex forms such as sponges, the worms and so forth. Especially if you don't think about it too much.
Idiot. |
| bedrock_barney |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 01:24:42
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
Are those God's groupies in the background? Or is it indeed true that he has peers?
Discuss.
The humble apple |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 06/08/2007 : 01:15:56
|
| floop |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 10:34:53
"creation science" hehehehehehehehe |
| Carolynanna |
Posted - 06/06/2007 : 10:10:11
Looks like we have one of our own museums right here in Big Valley, Alberta, Canada;
http://www.bvcsm.com/
__________
Fuck off I got work to do. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 23:09:25
That is scary. Really scary (especially Clinton & Edwards). Was religion as prominent a candidacy issue when Bill Clinton got elected? And as a populist aside, what's Arnie's take on religion?
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| darwin |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 20:16:07
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
4) I think it's a mistake to think that Christians need to be defended. They're far, far more powerful than any atheist. In the USA atheist are one of the most despised groups of people. You can't be elected to public office in the USA if you don't claim Jesus and God as your guiding lights.
As I was saying, today the 3 leading candidates for the Democratic Presidential nomination (not counting Gore) attended a CNN forum about religion and each tried to prove that they aren't atheists.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070605/pl_nm/usa_democrats_religion_dc_1 _ylt=AkiHmNW2wyD2mjRxBzLg8IYE1vAI |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 15:11:17
Sam Harris 'The End of Faith'
We have names for people who have many beliefs for which their is no rational justification. When their beliefs are extremely common we call them 'religious'; otherwise they are likely to be called 'mad', or 'psychotic' or 'delusional'.....Clearly there is sanity in numbers. And yet, it is merely an accident of history that it is considered normal in our society to believe that the Creator of the Universe can hear our thoughts, while it is demonstrative of mental illness to believe that he is communicating with you by having rain tap in Morse code on your bedroom window. And so, while religious people are not generally mad, their core beliefs absolutely are.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 14:34:55
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
I liked it. Why'd you quit drinking?
it was just time.
quote:
"Please keep an open mind and find out more than a caricature of what creationists believe. "
no.
its bullshit.
sorry.
the very existence of the word "creationism" or "creationist" is reactionary and invented to stem the ever-growing tide of athiesm that threatens objective, sensible education of the human race and radical personal responsibility for all.
"creationism" exists because people are realizing that if they believe in any part of the bible, then they have to believe it all - in all of its preposterousness.
no more mediocrity - either you're a complete fucking nutjob or you're an athiest because thats what religion wants - full control of your mind.
you begin to question 'faith' and the curtain starts to unravel.
its like being in a shitty coverband...i mean - just quit. what's the point? if you're out there taking parts of the bible as truth and other parts as not, then get the hell off the fence and make a decision to buy it all or nothing. grow up. you're just wasting yours and everyone else's time by being 'agnostic'. agnosticism is just fear of being struck by lightning. give up. quit doing what is holding you back.
you can do it.
you don't need god.
http://secularskeptic.blogspot.com/2007/06/my-road-to-atheism-part-1-what-took-me.html
|
| coastline |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 11:35:51
This letter to the editor was in The Denver Post yesterday. I don't endorse the opinion, but I thought it might be decent fodder for this thread.
Re: "Adam, Eve and T-Rex; Museum's biblical take on history opens to public Monday," May 27 news story.
Thank you for reporting on the Creation Museum. Many people believe an infinite God created time and space about 6,000 years ago and revealed our origins in human language. Others believe in eternal matter/energy that produced life through random processes. Others believe something in between. Whatever you believe, you should hear the arguments of creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.
People think that if you don't believe in millions of years, you are unscientific, deceptive, and/or delusional. This is understandable because cartoons, movies, schools, natural history museums and zoos all express millions of years as undisputed fact.
In reality, creationists embrace science. Many top engineers and scientists believe in a young Earth, including MRI pioneer Dr. Raymond Damadian. The scientific method itself stems from belief in an orderly God who established natural laws we could discover through repeatable tests. Therefore, most of our current scientific disciplines were founded by creationists.
Evolutionary thinking has actually held back scientific discovery. Organs with unknown functionality were considered "vestigial" and went decades without being properly researched. Then there was "junk" DNA, which we now know has key functions. Please keep an open mind and find out more than a caricature of what creationists believe.
 Please pardon me, for these my wrongs. |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 11:11:59
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
There are no surprises in nature. Nature does not surprise itself.)
I can't help but think that your last statement is erroneous Erebus. What about mutations? If you've ever read Asimov's Foundation series, there is a nice example of (albeit fictional) Determinism vs mutation in there (second book I think). In fact now that this is mentioned, the whole series pretty much deals with the (perceived) science of Determinism.
Llama, my take on that is that mutations appear surprising or random when you look down upon them from the next higher level of analysis. We ask, where did that come from? But at the level of causality at which the mutation occurs (the genetic level), and at the level below that (the biochemical, or whatever it would be called), the mutation is occurring in a manner consistent with the relevant laws of nature.
We tend to refer to genetic mutations and the phenotypes they give rise to as "random", and relative to the level at which selection occurs they might as well be, but my suspicion is that at the level at which mutations actually occur they are not random. I would think that at the biochemical level there is a pattern to the occurrence of mutations. Just my opinion as someone interested in reductionism. I'm not a geneticist.
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 09:02:56
I liked it, too. And it's good you quit drinking. Yay, you.
I have my own version of those dreams. You know what New Order said...
I got some heaven in my head
|
| Llamadance |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 08:39:38
I liked it. Why'd you quit drinking?
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| KimStanleyRobinson |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 08:36:29
yeah, i deleted it.
fucking pointless.
LBF, if i was still drinking you'd be damn skippy i'd be there and yes it would be messy.
been about three months.
im starting to have the dreams like i did when i quit smoking, only its not waking up in the morning and lighting up, its walking around somewhere hitting a pint of Beam and having some kind of dream rationalization that im not actually drinking.
the mind is fun.
im old and boring and hate stuff |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 06/04/2007 : 00:08:08
quote:
Originally posted by Erebus
I apologize for being so long-winded, but even as it is there is so much more that could be said, especially since this debate has been going on for at least a couple thousand years.
( * I realize this puts me in conflict with some views of what is implied by quantum mechanics. For what it’s worth, I rather ignorantly do not accept some of the controversial ontological implications of conventional quantum understanding. There are no surprises in nature. Nature does not surprise itself.)
I can't help but think that your last statement is erroneous Erebus. What about mutations? If you've ever read Asimov's Foundation series, there is a nice example of (albeit fictional) Determinism vs mutation in there (second book I think). In fact now that this is mentioned, the whole series pretty much deals with the (perceived) science of Determinism.
As for us, well, I am the sum of my genes and experiences. But that just gives probabilities for my actions. My wife would have no way of predicting that I would sort out the washed laundry pile this week. I'm kind of shocked myself.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| awestruck |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 21:32:21
Ok, point taken, but I really didn't realize it came out sounding that way. I did get a few insults that were uncalled for and I guess I got a bit defensive.
Maybe I will grin but I won’t bear
|
| floop |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 21:08:21
i don't think there's anything wrong with discussing you're beliefs or expressing your opinion.. i've just noticed that several times in this thread you've stated that you didn't want to create an agrument. on that i call bullshit, is all i'm saying.
|
| awestruck |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 19:52:00
I am just posting what i think just like everyone else. no one deserves the bad things put upon them.
Also i know what it is like for a child who is innocent to develop an illness. My son has Type 1 diabetes. Granted that is not the same as brain cancer. you know what, I don't know how to explain everything. I am not God.
I am not playing the "victim routine." I thought I was contributing to an interesting conversation with forum members that were discussing an interesting topic.
Maybe I will grin but I won’t bear
|
| floop |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 19:29:32
how do you distinguish between illnesses people bring on themselves and ones that are seemingly random? of course someone smoking for 50 years is at risk of lung cancer, but what about 4 year old kids who get brain cancer? (like someone in my girlfriends family)
did they somehow deserve it? and if not, then what reasons would God have to put so many innocent people through so much suffering and misery? we just trust that He has his reason, right?
it's interesting how you keep saying you don't want to get in an argument about Christianity / creation yet you come back with some new passive aggressive post about it every 10 minutes
sorry, i don't buy the victim routine here.. if you really didn't want to create a stir, you wouldn't |
| awestruck |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 18:50:29
No i wasn't because i am included in that statement. sorry if it sounded insulting.
I only meant that we all do things that is not good for us, but it is our choice to do those things. Therefore, we should not blame God for the bad things that happen to us if it could have been prevented if we had chose a different path.
Maybe I will grin but I won’t bear
|
| kathryn |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:48:05
quote:
Originally posted by awestruck
As far as cancer and other illnesses, people bring a lot on themselves.
I'm gonna guess you're not trying to be insulting by that statement.
I got some heaven in my head
|
| coastline |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:45:38
quote:
Originally posted by trobrianders
We made Him up and everybody knows it.
Erebus?
Please pardon me, for these my wrongs. |
| trobrianders |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:29:57
We made Him up and everybody knows it.
_______________
Ed is the hoo hoo |
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:05:35
Personally, I don’t see how there can be free will. I realize it feels as though we are free, and we certainly assign credit and blame to ourselves and others on the assumption that we possess free will and are therefore morally responsible for what we do.
But when we look at what is involved in our decisions, moment by moment, it just doesn’t seem plausible. All a person can do at any moment is, to the best of his or her ability, sum up the relevant circumstances and then bring to bear upon that sum the mental states, the brain states, and the values that they possess (or are possessed by) at that moment. What a person decides in a moment arises from an interaction between what is external to themselves and what is internal. The person perceives what is external, thereby making it internal, and that which has been perceived and processed cognitively then interacts with the predispositions within the individual toward decision and action. A decision is a product of the circumstances at hand, which includes the external, itself now internalized, and whatever was pre-existingly internal to the individual.
At any given instant in time, it seems that the nature or state of an individual must be seen as being fixed, as being what it is, no more, no less. All you can bring to bear upon a decision is what you’ve got, so that is in fact what you bring to bear, of necessity.
Going back to my second sentence in the first paragraph above, I think the reason we make the mistake of perceiving ourselves as free is that we have first made the mistake of perceiving our selves as singularities, and as autonomous singularities at that. We say “I” do or did that. We think of our selves first and foremost as “selves”. As individual “its”. Of course science tells us that, and we realize that, our brains are infinitely complex entities, the machinations of which we accept as the result of causes and sequences of events we cannot possibly grasp, but all the while we “willingly” participate in the illusion that we are the “I”s or “me”s driving, topdown, at least some aspect of this causality. We’re deeply enmeshed in this illusion, via our language, our culture, and our moral philosophies, and have been since long before there was any scientific understanding of what it means to be a human or even an animal.
I think that at any moment in time a thing, or an it, to include a human being, is what it is, no more, no less, and therefore that it is committed, or determined, to doing and behaving in a manner consistent with what it is. First being or existence, meaning what it is, and then the doing and the relating. A thing cannot be two things at the same time*, and therefore it can respond, always, in but one, narrowly and necessarily constrained manner.
I apologize for being so long-winded, but even as it is there is so much more that could be said, especially since this debate has been going on for at least a couple thousand years.
( * I realize this puts me in conflict with some views of what is implied by quantum mechanics. For what it’s worth, I rather ignorantly do not accept some of the controversial ontological implications of conventional quantum understanding. There are no surprises in nature. Nature does not surprise itself.)
|
| Erebus |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 17:01:22
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
on the otherhand free will suggests that we have a choice - that things aren't necessary, but contingent. we could have done something else without any contradiction.
Yes, free will implies that if one could go back to the point of a decision and get a "do over", that one could do something different the second time around. I don't think that works.
|
| stymie |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 16:08:10
Go Darwin! |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 15:37:59
i got the problem with free will and determinism a bit wrong. so i consulted wikipedia for this post, beause i knew there was something about one sort of requiring the other. see david hume's arguments.
llama, i take determinism to mean that our actions are determined by a chain of cause and effect that can be followed back to the start of the universe. therefore you might ask: how can we be held responsible for our actions?
on the otherhand free will suggests that we have a choice - that things aren't necessary, but contingent. we could have done something else without any contradiction. therefore you might think we can be held responsible for our actions.
but if things don't follow laws of cause and effect then it suggests things can happen randomly. which once again suggests we can't be held reponsible.
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline |
| Cheeseman1000 |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:57:57
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
cheeseman the problem is that the christian god is often described as omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
"Is [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Hume
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline
I've heard that before (also possibly Sophie's World) but I'm not sure applying a finite, natural logic to an infinite, supernatural being proves anything.
|
| awestruck |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:31:35
quote:
Originally posted by Llamadance
quote:
Originally posted by awestruck
I am not saying that it will make a better world. I was just saying that free will influences decisions make.
As for my ex, his intentions for the saved money were selfish. Besides, he probably would never have used it for buying his land. I am actually surprised he never dipped into the account to get cash. He was heavy into drugs.
Sorry awestruck, but didn't you interpret his action as a sign from god? It doesn't matter that his intentions were selfish, you took it as a sign, that god had somehow shown you, or created for you, a way to escape your life.
And if that's true, then he (your husband) didn't have free will, did he? And if everything does happen for a reason, then it's all predetermined anyway, so there's no free will. We're all acting out on god's Broadway.
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr
I did see it as a sign from God and still do. I believe people have free will.
You know there is another thing to consider. I am sure I will regret saying this. Satan does play a part in life on Earth.
If we are going to discuss God's role in our lives, then Satan needs to be considered too.
Maybe I will grin but I won’t bear
|
| darwin |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:24:29
quote:
Originally posted by PixieSteve
funny thing about free will is that it actually requires determinism. otherwise, how can you be sure that your free choices will lead to what you expect, if things don't follow set rules?
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline
I don't think it requires determinism. You can make choices without knowing the outcomes. If you stepped out into a busy road, you don't know you'll get run over, but you think there is a high probability that it will happen. Therefore, you chose not to step out into the road. |
| Llamadance |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 14:02:00
gah, you've got me reading up on determinism now. There's many different kinds....which one were you thinking of?
No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God George Bush snr |
| PixieSteve |
Posted - 06/03/2007 : 13:46:36
funny thing about free will is that it actually requires determinism. otherwise, how can you be sure that your free choices will lead to what you expect, if things don't follow set rules?
"I'm an editor of a major publication" - coastline |
|
|
